File photo from 2004. Mayor Newsom (left in white shirt) walks the streets of the Tenderloin to talk with the homeless about his new Care Not Cash program. File photographs from 2004. Mayor Newsom begins his Care Not Cash program with a tour of the McAllister Hotel and the Tenderloin homeless situation.

With a behind-the-back move, the progressive minority on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is slipping three divisive measures on the fall ballot. The worst of the batch will probably create just what the city doesn't need: more homeless people left behind.

One initiative takes aim at the city's voter-endorsed Care Not Cash program that supplies services in place of welfare money for thousands of homeless people, one would ban demolishing buildings with more than 50 housing units, and the third would bar the rental of park facilities.

The measures make use of an election quirk that allows a minimum of four supervisors to put a proposal before voters without signatures, advance notice or notification to those affected. It's the opposite of transparent and open.

The three measures are also pure politics - a rerun of past losing battles in two cases - and a bid to turn out progressive voters in the mayoral race in November. Supervisor John Avalos, a late entry in the contest, is backing all three. Other supervisors behind all or most of the measures include David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi.

The homeless measure would largely undo Care Not Cash, pushed by then-Supervisor Gavin Newsom in 2002. The proposal removes homeless housing from the program, taking away the starting point for care and services. It's a drastic change sought by homeless advocates who feel the Newsom plan is punitive. But if it passes, prepare for more troubled, aimless souls on San Francisco sidewalks. One note: Ever-popular Mayor Ed Lee is opposed.

The second initiative sounds pleasing in a housing-scarce city: a ban on tearing down big apartment projects. But it's a gesture aimed at undoing a major renovation of the Parkmerced complex, which would replace 1,500 units with 7,200 dwellings, many of them rent controlled.

Long term, the initiative would do even more damage by freezing the landscape and denying both builders and community groups options in conceiving new projects. What's progressive about that?

The third measure plays into the popular notion that parks are being managed for income and outside rents, not public use. It seeks a ban on leases and fees, a stricture that might undercut America's Cup rentals on the Marina Green or the Boys Club renting a gym in the Mission. Recreation and Park General Manager Phil Ginsburg has crafted a no-layoff budget this year, a miracle that would be undone by this shortsighted idea.

Voters often face policy issues devised after debate and thought. These three, though, are sops to interest groups, designed to help Avalos' late-starting campaign and hobbled by zero input from important voices. The five supervisors should withdraw these ill-conceived ballot proposals.

Express your views

Let the five supervisors know what you think of these proposals. E-mail: